Colin, these are some of the BEST images I have ever viewed!! Just breathtaking! Every photo technique for a quality composition is there!
Natl Geo. has nothing on you!
Your images leave me without much praise to say because of this! WOW is about the best I can do.
And to live in one of my most favorites places on Earth..Victoria Is....Got a pic of the Queen Vic hotel??
Danpbphoto wrote:
Colin, these are some of the BEST images I have ever viewed!! Just breathtaking! Every photo technique for a quality composition is there!
Nat Geo has nothing on you!
Your images leave me without much praise to say because of this! WOW is about the best I can do.
And to live in one of my most favorites places on Earth..Victoria....Got a pic of the Queen Vic hotel??
Got my vote!
Dan
Thanks for the kind words Dan. I think you must mean the Empress Hotel? You know how it is, things in one's own home town aren't very interesting - funny how that goes.
Colin F wrote:
Thanks for the kind words Dan. I think you must mean the Empress Hotel? You know how it is, things in one's own home town aren't very interesting - funny how that goes.
Yes you are correct Colin. I was thinking of another place nearby in Cape May, NJ. When I was in Vancouver on business way back when, I would go to the Empress for "high tea" and dinner then take the ferry back to Vancouver.
Again Colin, your photos just stun me in their beauty. It is not just in the viewing them. They exude a story! They make me want to just sit and talk to these people to see what their views on life are. I might even learn something!
Dan
bestdayz wrote:
What lenses did you use for the trip?
While I took a Canon 50mm f/1.2, Canon 16-35 f/4, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and Canon 40mm f/2.8 (on a 5DIV), it was the 70-200 that got the lions share of the shooting. A number of people told me I was crazy to take such a big, heavy lens, and to "go light", but I found it to be invaluable and indispensable. I didn't find it to be too heavy at all; those of us who use use 500 f/4 lenses at home (for birds) find complaints about the weight of a 70-200 amusing. I found that whenever I tried one of the other lenses, my shooting plummeted. There were many times when the 200mm wasn't enough reach. A lot of that has to do with my style of shooting I suppose (getting in tight), but I couldn't imagine doing without such a versatile lens.
On my more recent Morocco trip, I had just switched to Nikon (D850), and just took a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and that worked out really well, 24mm was plenty wide enough for me.
If I could only have ONE lens for this sort of shooting, it would most certainly be the 70-200 f/2.8
Those are some great captures! I have the 70-200 f4 version but I don’t think I would get the separation that you got at 2.8 so I carry primes instead. Just because I shoot telephoto mostly wide open. For landscapes it’s on a tripod anyway so the weight is moot.
Colin F wrote:
While I took a Canon 50mm f/1.2, Canon 16-35 f/4, Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and Canon 40mm f/2.8 (on a 5DIV), it was the 70-200 that got the lions share of the shooting. A number of people told me I was crazy to take such a big, heavy lens, and to "go light", but I found it to be invaluable and indispensable. I didn't find it to be too heavy at all; those of us who use use 500 f/4 lenses at home (for birds) find complaints about the weight of a 70-200 amusing. I found that whenever I tried one of the other lenses, my shooting plummeted. There were many times when the 200mm wasn't enough reach. A lot of that has to do with my style of shooting I suppose (getting in tight), but I couldn't imagine doing without such a versatile lens.
On my more recent Morocco trip, I had just switched to Nikon (D850), and just took a Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8, and that worked out really well, 24mm was plenty wide enough for me.
If I could only have ONE lens for this sort of shooting, it would most certainly be the 70-200 f/2.8...Show more →
bestdayz wrote:
I have the 70-200 f4 version but I don’t think I would get the separation that you got at 2.8 so I carry primes instead.
Yes, primes are great, but for me not practical in these sorts of settings, as photo-ops appear and disappear so quickly, there's usually no time for a lens change, not to mention the dusty conditions.
I found that whenever I tried one of the other lenses, my shooting plummeted. There were many times when the 200mm wasn't enough reach. A lot of that has to do with my style of shooting I suppose (getting in tight), but I couldn't imagine doing without such a versatile lens.